Ha! I must be skinnier or have a bigger dick than you!! Even after putting on all my Gucci gear on.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
I let it out and could see the tip!!!!
Printable View
Ha! I must be skinnier or have a bigger dick than you!! Even after putting on all my Gucci gear on.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
I let it out and could see the tip!!!!
You have a long neck, so that doesn't countQuote:
Originally Posted by R93
True, and I may have sucked my gut in a little.:D
there you are EBF second from the leftQuote:
Originally Posted by ebf
I dont get ya Gimp -other than its way more pages than I want to read it is an analysis done for the Special operation unit and you think it shit --well Ok :thumbsup:doesnt alter the original point though -snipers shoot less than target shooters ...well in the US and hence their ability shoot first round hit at distance are less than a well rehearsed target shooter --no hard to comprehend in my viewQuote:
Originally Posted by gimp
Why did you post this thread El b? Honestly? What bearing has it got on anything?
I am sure most serving soldiers would acknowledge that on average and in a one off comp the seasoned target shooter would have it over the unit trained sniper 9/10 times on a gazetted range, shooting F class or the like.
Military marksmen don't shoot V bulls. They are silhouette or 3 dimensional shooters. 95% of their targets are moving or snap. Any LR targets are/should be well thought out and only taken when there is a high % chance of hit.
Get yourself a head-shaped target, not modelled off yours as that would just be cheating.
Draw a 100mm dia circle centred, from the tip of the nose.
Fix it to a long pole and get someone to operate it for you from the butts of an NRA range.
Set yourself up at 300. Get the target op to give you 5 x 3 sec exposures in the center of your lane over 5 minutes. Then 5 x 3 sec exposures any height and anywhere in your lane across a 6m frontage over 5 minutes.
This was considered to be a gift serial at the start of a badge shoot. You get 5 points in the circle or cutting the line, 3 points outside but on the target.
Target is to spin and fall when hit. Target is to be snapped into and out of position.
Worth 50 points.
No sighters allowed, just rock up and shoot. Just a wee taste of Military type shooting if you fancy yourself.
So you're saying Gimp is wrong because you're too lazy to read? I dont get ya?Quote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
Naa, that Gimp in his blimp suit :thumbsup: I'm the bald dude on the right...Quote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebf
I thought gimp was a thai fighter not a sumo wrestler?
It's Gimp, he's a Thai fighter, sumo wrestler plus more
I've heard that he is bulking up for some MMA style fight in the upcoming redneck games :P
I have been working on my mono ab lately.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebf
No the analysis literally has nothing to do with what you and your shit clickbait link think it does and you seem to be completely unable to read my posts pointing this out or, I dunno, the original sourceQuote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
I would love to do all that shit -shame we dont have the facilities to do this stuff .Quote:
Originally Posted by R93
Now after all that back fanatical muslim back whipping and lamenting the original article was what it was -nothing more nothing less -a mans observation of a companies observation about a versus b -- 7pages of interest mmm not bad
prove me wrong with a cut and paste -more than willing to take it on the chin Gimp !!!Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
Single syllables and no more than 50 words. No numbers bigger than 10.Quote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
youve read the whole article have you wildman or just stirred from mental hibernation to add a worthless pennys worthQuote:
Originally Posted by Wildman
And I would hazard a guess 99% of civilian target shooters have not done any shooting of that nature either.:roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
yep Id go along with that about the movers .Movers are the main problem as one needs either permission to walk in the butts which generally arnt to big so you need to shoot pretty quick or a chain driven mechanism which is a real enthusiast domain .
In saying that it is still just a mathematical shot depending on distance , wind and target movement speed .
Depending on distance many enthusiast could accomplish this I believe given the opportunity -its more a thing of distance I would think that would screw ones shot up with a longer distance wind call being that much harder .
Its all good fun though doing this stuff if you have a facility to have a go !
come on Wildman Im awaiting another penny's worth
Yup, I don't need it explained. I took that type of shooting for granted my whole career. But as easy as you think it would be to adopt for a civilian. Isn't it fair to assume the soldier, with the same time spent shooting v bulls could be as good as any target shooter?Quote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
Me thinks you guys are all nuts this is a very good read on the subject.:)
Attachment 13051
El B, has it ever occurred to you that you come across as a bit of a cunt?
Well this thread kindov deteriorated... i'll try a constructive comment.
In my opinion, precision shooting is something like 90% in your head, 5% physical and 5% the firearm.
In top level benchrest and F Class shooting the firearm accuracy comes into it more and the physical aspect reduces, but it is still mostly a mental challenge. In military style competitions the physical aspect is more promenent and the rifle accuracy less so. Kinda pointless trying to compare them, they are simply different.
Just about anyone (civie or military) who puts in the training, practice and mental energy into precision shooting could be as good as just about any competitive shooter in any competition (civie or military).
actually R93 I never did -As the original article eluded to "rifletime "was the key and it didnt compare any physical attributes -in fact reading pg 16 or point 5 i think said a prone rested position not under stress . Funny as hell as a few are showing fanatical attributes of some middle eastern people over this simple observation .Quote:
Originally Posted by R93
Your old man Gillie, is walking proof.
your rudeness is not appreciatedQuote:
Originally Posted by 308
here is my father r93Quote:
Originally Posted by R93
Men of 'forgotten war' remember - National - NZ Herald News
I don't think your a c#$t El B. Difficult yes, as are we all at times. But you never answer a simple question as it should be.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
there was little to be answered on this article it was a straight forward observation --nothing more although it didnt go into the physical side of things which definatly as i mentioned early on would change the hit rate --but this article as i read both bits was prone non pressue shots or so the link said .
To call someone a cunt isnt a nice thing to do , cheap very cheap shot
I do enjoy a good tussel hehehe:thumbsup:
I agree. Especially in my case, some people would consider them useful :DQuote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
Its the internet El B. Takes a while to realise it, but its not that personal. And doesn't matter in the real world.
Speaking for myself here, if I get addressed as one, I reckon I most probably deserve it.:D
I choose not to do that shit R93 it just aint nice and Im a very nice person if I say so myself :wtfsmilie:and enjoy fruitful debate
Na mate I'm taking a leaf out of your book and making illogical statements based on what I think is in the given references...Quote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
Fair enough EL B. I have just tried not to worry about it anymore. Life has just been awesome lately:thumbsup:
This Gentleman was the last member on my fathers side before me, to serve in the forces. I had the privilege of meeting him in the late 70's He was wounded and told he would not live out the war. He died in 1979 in his 90's. He was a soldiers, soldier. He had heaps of memorabilia that was stolen after he passed. His family farm was still running up Humphries until the late 1990's
Auckland War Memorial Museum - Mills-Edward-William-World-War-I,-1914-1918
Great site for anyone interested.
you know I read this on another forum im on Snipers Hide , an excellent forum . This post was originally posted by an ex sniper school boss and this is what the boss of Sniper Hide and ex army sniper said about the piece and given that Ifind some statements here most unusual but maybe they know better
Most people don't realize the shooting part is really a tiny piece of the pie.
You have to get there, and then worry about getting back.
Observation, Communication, Land Navigation, all play just as big a roll in it, if not bigger.
Sniper School for me was 12 weeks, do you think we shot everyday ? I still have my daily schedule, so I can tell you everything that was done everyday for those 12 weeks... the majority of it was not shooting. I tell a lot of people, once you get there, they figure you already know how to shoot good enough. In most cases you had to have qualified expert at least 3x before going to Sniper School... So the instructors are not there to "teach" you how to shoot. I was much happier using my radio than I was worrying about the rifle. In places like CAX, calling for fire was much more enjoyable than shooting the rifle at the same old thing over and over. You would be more apt to have found me with a radio over a rifle.
Targets in the military are much larger, 20x40 in most cases, though nowadays they have reduced that thanks to outside training. Civilian shooters on the other hand are meticulous, passionate, and committed. They are not worried about the same things, so you really can't compare the two head to head. As noted above, combat is not the best teacher of the fundamentals. And while people do take away important lessons from combat, marksmanship fundamentals is not at the top of the list. That is why it is always interesting to read people chasing down someone for instruction because of the combat part of it. (if you're in CAG, sure, but a line unit ? )
On the combat side, since my experience was back when nobody was getting experience in combat, unlike today, we were tasked in a much different roll. It turned out to be the largest Naval battle since WWII, however on the ground pounding side, it wasn't much of a fight. We traded in our M40s for M16s and MP5s, as moving through ships, and oil platforms is much easier with those as opposed to a 44" bolt action rifle.
Sinister has a great post somewhere on the benefit of competition shooting for the Operational Sniper, since he was probably running around the AMU during this study, he would definitely be one to chime in. Needless to say, even when the opportunity is available to guys, they rarely take advantage of it. The military would rather the day off, and the cop wants to be paid.
the old boy has a great shot of his father in the middle east next to an Egyptian I think dresses in there army kit =the Egyptian has a funny cone hat on and towers above grandad who is probably no bigger than me 5,4 standing on my toes --must get a copy and post it . Sadly grandad went nuts with shell shock and was fucked for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by R93
Couldn't agree more with that fellas observations and I am sure I have said pretty much the same thing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
Okay you linked a page that is talking about a table that is used as a source in this study from 1999
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps5ca8934d.png
-The linked study is NOT about differences in theoretical accuracy of snipers/competition shooters - it is looking at the possible benefits of a fire control system on sniper weapons to increase hit probability, comparing the effect of variables on a baseline system of shooter/spotter vs a fire control system.
The author(s) of the page you linked clearly haven't actually read the study at all, and they've cherry-picked and mis-interpreted some parts of the table and written a stupid couple of paragraphs with an eye catching headline as "clickbait" to get views on their site. Either that or they did read it, and knowingly mis-represented it, to get views on their site.
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps38ad8c39.png
-Even if the linked study was about differences in theoretical accuracy of snipers/competition shooters (which it isn't), it's FROM 1999 so it's highly unlikely that it would relevant today given the massive US military development over the last decade and a half, with 2 wars happening etc
-This is the table in question. The author of the page you linked has cherry-picked the numbers from it but disregarded the footnotes which explain that the "snipers" data is for "entry level snipers across all services", and the "competition shooter" data is for "national level competitors" and also applies to "experienced snipers"
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...pse6d6f05f.jpg
-Even if the table WAS just comparing "snipers" and "competitive shooters at a national level" (which it isn't) it would be a biased comparison anyway because it would be comparing the shooting ability two groups, one of which has been selected for ability at shooting (competition shooters) and one that hasn't, and concluding that the selected group is better at it. No shit?
-Even if theoretical competition shooters were proven to be more accurate on a flat range with known distance targets, sighters, unlimited time etc, that is only one facet of effective shooting and not important if others are "accurate enough"
-The table itself is sourced from a 1990 study which I cannot find to read, the data was ESTIMATED and we have no idea how it was estimated or the sources/methods of gathering the data or real definitions so the table is utterly worthless, not even mentioning that it's two and a half decades old now.
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps9e103bd8.png
-The authors of the linked study completely disregard any theoretical differences in their deliberations of whether a fire-control system will improve hit probability
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps8e755856.png
-You're trying to draw conclusions about a shitty article based on a mis-interpreted piece of worthless statistics. That's what I'm calling retarded, not your precious ~*special operations*~ study (which is actually 2 dudes, one of whom is a contractor from an external corporation, doing a theoretical maths problem in 1999 sooooooo.....). Read sources of stuff on the internet before posting dumb shit. Or just listen when I say something is retarded and save me all this fucking typing
-I don't give a shit about "snipers vs competition shooters" but I hate people who can't perform simple reading comprehension or critical thinking
-Good thing I was mad bored today
shit what an effort Gimp and thank you for taking time to do this!! Now even with this the practicality of the original post still stands --those that shoot lots get better than those that dont and target shooters for non pressure under fire shots will probably out shoot many Snipers in the same range test --the last post I did alludes to the mentality of some US based Snipers . No biggy just interesting
-
